Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
SHOW
Book TV 69
( more )
STATION
SFGTV 599
MSNBCW 411
FOXNEWSW 292
CNNW 266
SFGTV2 250
CSPAN 216
CSPAN2 195
FBC 187
CNBC 110
KPIX (CBS) 94
CURRENT 77
KTVU (FOX) 72
MSNBC 71
KGO (ABC) 65
KQED (PBS) 61
WBAL (NBC) 53
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 3514
TOPIC
washington 2121
obama 1677
new york 1279
boehner 1171
california 1021
newtown 719
sandy 694
clinton 609
syria 549
michigan 546
china 500
florida 499
virginia 493
( more )
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 3,525 (some duplicates have been removed)
there is a lot of passion on all sides of this issue. mr. chairman we have before us legislation restricting public nudity in parts of san francisco. this legislation which is much more narrow than the broad nudity ban in the park code for decades acknowledges public nudity is part in san francisco and appropriate in some circumstances. the legislation also acknowledges it's not always appropriate and in the neighborhoods and commercial districts where we have to live and work and live our lives together public nudity can at times can too far. for years public nudity has been part of san francisco and beaches and parades and some of our bars and the occasional sporadic naked person wondering the streets. it wasn't a big deal and few people caressed. in the last few years it's changed. public nudity is no longer random and sporadic, or occasional part of san francisco and in the castro it's seven days a week. everyday where people live, play and conduct their lives. to be very clear despite some of the press coverage this is not about cock rings but that maybe the extreme example but it
before you is an important legislation reforming our c-e-q-a appeal process in san francisco. and in fact, implementing a process where we really don't have one legislatively. this legislation has no impact whatsoever on anyone's substantive rights under c-e-q-a. in fact, we can't do that under state law as much as sometimes we'd like to amend state law, we can't. this provides for an improved more predictable and more timely process without affecting anyone's substantive c-e-q-a rights. commissioners, today i'm sure you would hear quite a bit of hyper boll i can rhetoric about how this legislation somehow undermines or guts * c-e-q-a and how the legislation will cause the sky to collapse into the earth. which is, of course, untrue. you will also hear hyperbole about how this legislation is some sort of nefarious developer scheme, which is also untrue, and ignores the fact that c-e-q-a appeals occur commonly for anything ranging from bike lanes to affordable housing projects to park projects, library projects, small family residential projects, and other projects that are anything but a
sleep well at night. so we are really hopeful that the legislation will help people to understand how they are treated and get better. we are living in a pretty bad situation once you have bed bugs. so we hope that we could get this legislation done really fast, so things will get better for us. we thank the supervisors to put such an emphasis on improving the environment for us. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call up a couple more name cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon supervisors, thank you, my name is jorge potio, a lifetime resident of san francisco and i want to start by recognizing the hard work that has been put into the legislation. to those affects and to those who are supporting the people affected by this issue, really, it's serving as kind of a buffer to what could have been a real crisis. as a housing rights advocate for the mission collaborative for the past five years and a friend of many people who have had bed bugs i have wintered firsthand the devastating affects on lives. and so i can really appreciate this a[pro-rb/] and thank you to
state legislators and leaders from the corporate and business community. this partnership offers businessmen the extraordinary opportunity to apply their talents to solve our nation's problems and build on our opportunities. >> i was stunned at the notion that politicians and corporate representatives, corporate lobbyists were actually voting behind closed doors on these changes to the law before they were introduced in statehouses across the country. >> you might have heard the name alec in the news lately. >> the american legislative exchange council, or "alec" for short. >> the american legislative exchange council, or alec. >> alec is a nationwide consortium of elected state legislators working side-by-side with some of america's most powerful corporations. they have an agenda you should know about, a mission to remake america, changing the country by changing its laws one state at a time. alec creates what it calls "model legislation," pro-corporate laws like this one, that its members push in statehouses across the nation. alec says close to a thousand bills, based at least
state law in a couple instances. but since this is essentially gap-filling legislation, it is not going beyond or inconsistent with state law. * i think the issue that you are most likely to get confused about, whether by confusion of the speakers or by deliberate representation -- misrepresentations by the speakers, is this issue of substantial evidence. and without going into a long legal treatise, there's two ways in which the term substantial evidence is used in c-e-q-a. one is an evidencery standard. one is an appellate standard. * the way in which this is introduced in this legislation has to do with evidence and very simply, if you want to make a case for conclusion, whether you is the city or you is the appellant, you need to substantial evident to support it. that's all that this ordinance says. that's what the state statutes say, that's what the state guidelines say, that's what the statute says. it doesn't produce any permissible standard. the other way in which substantial evidence is used in c-e-q-a is as a standard of review. and in very simple terms, there's two basic sta
this legislation. my only concern i think it should go further. if i pull my pants down right now and show everyone it and i would be arrested although in another area it's okay by a small majority. i would point out some of the people that have spoken are from the nudist community and advertise for websites in public and this has nothing to do with i want to be natural. i just want to be naked. this has to do with i want to get my weird sexual pleasure of being naked. once again i am strongly in favor of this. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. i am bruce smith and i would like to support this legislation. i would like to have the freedom to take my two nieces that visit from texas to a film in the castro and not come out of the theater and be exposed to naked men. i think we should have the right to introduce nudity to our children when we decide to chose, so i also think that the nudity in the castro -- i have been there for six years and helped to escalate the other problems in the area and many people that hang out i can hang out makeid, i could do anythi
. as a result, i introduce legislation to extend a narrower version of our existing nudity plazas, parklets and public transportation. to acknowledge that our public spaces are for everyone, and that, as a result, it's appropriate to have some minimal standards of behavior so that everyone can enjoy these spaces. this legislation and the issue generally has generated significant and intense debate community, and in the city as a whole. i don't pretend that there's unanimity around this legislation. there are strong views, legitimate strong views on both sides. but i do believe that the legislation has strong support in the community. and i'm not just talking about support from newspapers like the bay area reporter and the chronicle or community leaders like cleve jones or neighborhood groups. i'm talking about everyday citizens who live work and lead their lives in this wonderful neighborhood. some have suggested this legislation resulted from straight people somehow invading the castro or people in noe valley objecting to nudity in the castro or more people raising children or local busine
. colleagues, today, we have before us legislation restricting public nudity in parts of san francisco. this legislation, which is much more narrow than the broad nudity ban that has been in place in our parks and port for decades acknowledges that public nudity in part of san francisco, and that it's appropriate in some circumstances. the legislation also acknowledges that public nudity is not always appropriate and particularly in our neighborhoods and commercial districts, where we all have to together, public nudity can go too far. for many years, public nudity has been part of san francisco. we have it at our street fairs, parades, beaches, some of our bars, and the occasional and sporadic naked person wandering our streets. for many years it wasn't a big deal and few people cared. over the past two years, the situation on our streets and particularly in the castro has changed. it's no longer random and sporadic. it's no longer an occasional quirky part of san francisco. rather than in the castro it's seven days a week, pretty much every single day in this neighborhood where peopl
. that is one of the pieces of legislation is to open up those areas to allow mobile retail vendors to be in those area as supervisor wiener said. >> so there would be opening up areas that are off-limits today and taking off other areas that would now become off-limits by the 50' mandatory no-go zone? so there would be something favoring the mobile food operators and there would be some taking away in other areas, right? >> right. >> and we're trying to get a balanced approach. i would like to hear what mr. quon would think, based on his expertise and you will not be held to the wire on this. do you agree with -- what do you think would be the impact as far as accessibility for independent operators to come in and start a business with this new legislation would it dramatically restrict them? because they are going to give us the exaggerated investigator, which is what i would if i were them. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department of public works. what we have found is the loss of unintended consequences was very true in this case. the initial law passed was for mobil
in budget committee we did take action to amend the legislation to include information about making sure that future discretionary approvals are actually run by the cac and urging cac to hold meetings prior to us having the term sheet ahead of us. so this language is actually stronger in terms of actually saying explicitly that the board of supervisors will not take action on the term sheet or any other items that are listed here, until the cac holds meeting. so i just wanted to clarify from the city attorney's point of view, i know this is a resolution and so in many ways it's not necessarily a binding piece of legislation so technically the board could still act. however it does signal an intent so i wanted to ask office of economic and workforce development, in terms of the cac actually being able to schedule a meeting who actually controls making sure that we actually have timely meetings that are set up to review these items? i think it's important that the cac look at these items but if we were to have individuals who maybe didn't want to see it move forward if they chose not to ha
this legislation did not result in any sense from straight people or people with kids or merchants or people from noe valley complaining about public nudity. the dominant demographic expressing concern over the daily seven days a week nudity in the castro has been gay men. i've heard from far more childless gay men in support of this legislation than from noe valley people. i'm not just talking about new newbies but gay many who have lived in this neighborhood for years. one final point, specifically there are some who have said that there are already laws in the books that cover this situation. that is simply not the case. which i whies berkeley, san jo√Če and other california cities have their own public nudity restriction beyond the if there were already laws in place to address this situation, i would not have introduced this legislation. public nudity, currently, is not -- is legal in san francisco, other than in our parks, port, and in restaurants. there's been a suggestion that we should use lewd behavior laws, particularly the indecent exposure provisions of the california penal code. i d
by the legislation to change the use from student housing to residential use within the same development, but that the city is also able to then come in and monitor what are the requirements and the fees that they need to then pay. i think that we want to get this right. we are supportive of the recommendation of the planning staff. we have also heard from community members that there might need to be more time for discussion. this is clearly in your hands now, commissioners. i would say that we want to get it right. and if what is needed is a little bit more time, i think that the intent of the legislation as presented by myself today is pretty clear. we want reporting to be for new development exclusively to take advantage of these f.a.r. bonuses, [speaker not understood], and that is what the legislation wants to accomplish. as with every legislation drafting process, there were some additional things that made it into the legislation, but that is our goal and it's clearly stated today. so, we would like and look forward to hearing your feedback and look forward to hearing what other
this issue has come up, and now you have legislation that it passed, would it impact the entire city. and let me say that i certainly don't take the concerns that have been identified by supervisor wiener lightly. i understand that there are many people who reside in the castro, who reside in district 8, that have, you know, a very serious concerns about what's happening. and the question is not the issue of how serious this is, but simply what the best approach to addressing the situation is. and that's what it has come down to for me. and let me say that the main concern that i have, with respect to this legislation, is an issue of priorities. as a city, in terms of we, as a body, on the board of supervisors, thinking about the legislative actions that are needed and the things that we need to prioritize as a legislative body, for me, i question whether or not this rises to the level that it should be a priority. not that it's not an important issue, but let's just take the example that this legislation passes and there is a nudity ban in the city and county of san francisco. and let's just
and codificationses that the legislation does that's really -- that need to be done. i think that that's very true. i think the challenge is that there are some details related to what that mean when you start talking about discretionary actions and how one discretionary action, do people game the system and get a discretionary action, a place where they're left notice, no one is paying attention so they can get -- have an easier time in other places. i think that is problematic. i also think the appeals window the 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, 30 days with no notice, 20 days with some notice, is also somewhat problematic. those seem to be the two biggest issues that everybody is touching on. there is another thing about the fair argument which i don't see -- i can't find that language in the legislation because i'm not going to address it. it sounds like there's legal ramifications for even trying to change that wouldn't even -- beyond our concerns. but i think that there are real concerns about looking at what you would describe as the first discretionary action or what you would describe as discretio
the citywide epidemic that has been plaguing our neighborhoods. through the work group this legislation came forwards a series of recommendations on what we could do to better abate bedbugs and the bedbug abatement issue here in san francisco. this legislation will address three primary issues. the first of course is to actually collect data on bedbug abatement. so to require pest control operators to report to the department of public health on bedbug abatements and to have disclosures and create better information by the city and county of san francisco for tenants, our operators and for our property owners. so i wanted to call up two individuals who have been working very steadily on this project. mr. vining and miss chung. [ applause ] actually before i do that i wanted to give my colleagues an opportunity to speak, if any. do you want to recognize that supervisor david campos is a co-sponsor, along with supervisor david chiu. go ahead. >> good afternoon. thank you for this opportunity to speak today. i just wanted to sort of start off by thanking supervisor kim for supporting this im
urging your support for this legislation that would make our outdoor fairs and events on city property smoke free. san francisco is a mecca for exciting diverse free street events and festivals from the cherry blossom festival to carnival and the haight street festival to the fillmore jazz festival. our city offers an amazing array of opportunities for city residents and tourists to enjoy themselves on public streets but though they are open to everyone, including youth and families, in 2010 there were about 350 different street events in san francisco but this effort is to try to create more smoke free environments at these festivals. many of you already know that exposure to secondhand smoke kills over 73,000 non-smokers each year in the u.s., so it's definitely second hand smoke is a toxic substance that leads to death of many non-smokers in the u.s. and at outdoor events it may exacerbate people's health issues, especially if you have asthma or other respiratory ailments and especially harmful for youth and elderly as well as individuals with these types of illnesses. according
that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what the legislation currently requires. it requires every entity that owns, operates or controls student housing to file an annual report with very extensive and proprietary information about all of its student housing, including existing student housing and on-campus student housing regardless of whether any new student housing is proposed. obviously that's overly broad and quite frankly seems unnecessary. as you are aware and as tim and dan pointed out, there are already existing reporting requirements. the imp requirements and then the very extensive requirements for reporting if a student housing project takes advantage of the inclusionary housing exemption. i believe dan handed those out to you. so, in light of that existing requirement for the inclusionary housing exemption, we would respectfully request that if this legislation move forward, that it be limited in scope, but it be limited to new s
franciscoians thanks to your leadership on the local higher legislation not just for public projects but also private project like the proposed a marine eye 3030 and let's not forgot the manufacturing mere in san francisco through s of may we are offering programmings and technical assistance so that they can also be local job create ores i'm also crateful for san francisco voters who past thed housing trust fund to now allocate one $.2 billion in the next 30 years for low increase and moderate san franciscoians to house our workforce and keep families in san francisco so no, supervisor we will not crash the real estate market but invest in our 70 and people and ensure that san francisco stays as bloom berg called calls us, the best city in the in america. thanks for districts one seven and nine for their early holiday gift as well. >> thank you mayor wishing you a happy holiday as well. >> let's go to the rest of our genera mr. court please lead i genderree i. >> student: supermember requests a discussion of a matter -- colleagues would anyone like to sever any of these items? we wil
this legislation after hearing from small parkings who were having a hard time meeting the requirements that the city has in place and we have also heard of third party tax collection and the legislation before you amend it's the city's parking enforce law under city and tax code by reducing the bonding requirement for operator that is have a strong tax compliance and simplifying bond categorized and clarifying assurities under the law and how administrative citations are handled and clarifies requirements for government emit indictee when they operate a location for themselves. and the s ta reviewed the reaction and had no concerns and -- supported the legislation which came before the bulletin and finances committee i would like to thank the treasure of city of san francisco and his staff for working with my office specifically with seela in my office as well as gene and aleck alexander from the city attorney's office and i so i asks for your support of this ordinance. >> colleagues with ecan we take this item same time same call. >> this item is passed item 12. >>> >>> item 12
to be able to meet that date. >> thank you, deputy director. >> item 8b, update on proposed legislation. >>. >> good morning, commissioners, bill strong with legislative and public affairs. rethe earlier discussion with supervisor mar's aide, nick, on the grab bars, he did reconfirm before he left the hearing room that our permit legislation will be heard at land use on february 14. it's taken a bit longer than expected but we're looking for a positive recommendation from the committee to go to the full board, so i think that will probably get approved in january by the full board. as you know there is legislation that supervisor khu is still working on that's kind of a part 2 of the amendments he made earlier to the apartment convention ordinance and this one has to deal with shared housing. the most recent status on that is his aides have come back to us and have asked us to propose a fee structure because we would be responsible to come up with a registration process for those folks that own property and wanted to take advantage of what this legislation proposes to do, which means
need more community involvement in the shaping of our city, not less. this legislation makes a complicated process even more difficult for the average citizen by limiting the time frame for commenting and appeals. it also replace he the current legal standard of fair argument with substantial evidence. by doing so it cripple $the democratic process. forces groups or individuals to hire lawyers, scientists or consultants making it so we have no voice unless we have large sums of money to effectively pay someone to speak for them. this is wrong and this legislation needs to be thrown out. thank you. * >>> hi, my name is terrence faulkner. [speaker not understood] for many years, 1974. i've had a chance to see a lot of local politics. supervisor dianne feinstein when she was a supervisor more than 34 years ago frequently used to joke and she said this both to the press and on the floor of the board, if the developers and if the lobbyists had their way, we'd have an overhead sewer line running down market street. that's about it. there are many lobbying interests. there's many de
to the board of supervisors that the san francisco planning commission disapproves this proposed legislation. i have my remarks in letter form. may i please give it to you? thank you. >> thank you. >>> good afternoon. my name is dr. espinola jackson and i'm here representing the black leadership rights of san francisco. i'd like to say i'm requesting that you reject wiener's project. you know, four of you i know, and we came here before this body many times talking about bayview hunters point and the shipyard. but because of politics, developments, you didn't listen. three of you listened and voted with us. the rest voted against us and we had to file an appeal because of c-e-q-a. and guess what? we won. because the job wasn't done the way it was supposed to be done. even now a supervisor can come before you and support an issue like in my community, and you know what you did? you rezoned because it what slated rezoning 44 53rd street, you without even know when you came about rezoning for a wellness center, you was rezoning 17 other blocks and the politics in that, you know what it is? it's a
of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, madam speaker. as many things keep me awake at night as the chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the growing threat from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks not only abroad but here is of growing concern, instability in governments that possess these materials and increasing interest from those who would choose to do harm to the united states, desire to get their hands on these materials, means that we must prepare ourselves here at home for the unfortunate, i think unlikely, certainly in the short-term but possible position of being attacked with these disturbing weapons systems. this is that important step to protect americans by increasing our stockpiles and would urge its passage and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house pass
the haight/ashbury neighborhood. [speaker not understood]. this late draft legislation is not yet. this was crafted without significant input from environmentalists, neighbors, social justice, housing, tenant rights groups and historic preservation, and now a week after it was or so after it was introduced, we are being asked to come in and help tailor it. but what has to be done is toss this out and actually say, let's have everybody at the table at the beginning. it's very difficult to go through all of these pages and to manager this spot or that spot. this is a failing of public process here to have something presented with that kind of timeline, this kind of impact and with no involvement by the public * . c-e-q-a offers many benefits to city residents, government, and to developers by providing considerable notice to the public, encouraging developers and residents to work together and to develop mutually beneficial plans, to reduce appeals and costly litigation which is beyond most residents and community organizations' means anyway, and the government doesn't need costly l
made to the legislation that we have had before us, but we have not received. is that correct? >> that is correct. i would go run copies right now. i'm sorry for that. >> that's all right. we don't need to do that. >> there's one more clarification on your presentation. >> i just wanted -- i'm not sure if i understood this correctly. two things. you said that if one wanted to speak at a later e-i-r hearing, they had to have addressed the d-e-i-r hearing to speak at the later hearing? >> at the appeal hearing, that's correct. >> all right. that was one thing i wasn't clear about. and the other -- on negative declarations, it says there's no appeal to the board unless it first is appealed to the planning commission. i thought it was the other way around. it would be they appeal just to the board. but it has to first go to the planning commission. they can't directly much to the board for appeal? >> yes, if you're an appellant, you can appeal to the planning commission and then a again appeal later to the board. or some people choose to skip that and just appeal directly to the b
to planning or building permits. did we think about that when you were reviewing the legislation in terms of if you're going to choose a discretionary action as the trigger that it would be a planning or building permit only as opposed to, you know, kind of these ancillary permits? >> well, i don't think that the other permits are ancillary. in fact, maybe the concerns have been voiced here about those permits that are issued by other agencies where the notice is lesser bust. one of the things that's not really come out explicitly in this discussion is, and i think it's unlikely that the notice provisions will adversely affect how the planning department does things basically we'll send out a dr, 311 notice, a notice before this body, all of those notices, up until the point that action that triggers c-e-q-a review will say x has been [speaker not understood] in term of environmental review. at this hearing or some subsequent hearing, there could be an action that would trigger a c-e-q-a review period. if you have c-e-q-a concerns, contact planning department, rec, park, whoever, and that
this legislation. we have some serious concerns about it and we would really appreciate a continuance on this matter. that being said, i understand that you may not continue so i'd like to make a few limited comments. the stated purpose of this legislation is to monitor the conversion of student housing to nonstudent housing use. so, that beg the question of under what circumstances would the planning department need to be aware of that type of conversion. and i think the staff did a great job of pointing out there are only three limited circumstances. one is with the exemption from inclusionary housing requirements is taken advantage of. the other is the f.a.r. bonus, but that's only available in two of the c3 voting districts. -- zoning districts. the other is the exemption from the dwelling unit mixed requirement. that is a limited number of zoning districts as well. and i do appreciate that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what
legislation to the efficiency unit legislation that has already been heard in this committee that other legislation which is at the board of supervisors on tomorrow's agenda is a building code amendment. the companion legislation before us today is a planning code amendment. this legislation is being considered as a committee report, that it can be heard tomorrow as well, and dovetail in terms of timing with the underlying building code amendment. specifically, this legislation before us today is an amendment to the planning code that would establish a cap on the number of smaller efficiency units for the planning department entitled before a study and re-authorization would be required. the cap is set at 375 market rate, smaller efficiency units, after approximately 3 25 smaller efficiency units are entitled by the planning department. the department would be required to conduct a study so we can better understand how these units are being used. over the past several months i have worked with others, including board president david chiu, and various community organizations including th
for your support. i was involved with the initial legislation that resulted in the need for this revision. and i think one of the issues was transparency. and an idea of an element of certainty when you apply for the permit that the permit would allow you to operate and work and have confidence to be able to get to a place you can serve. and so i think the two elements that i would like to sort of bring up in this hearing-- by the way i would like to thank supervisor wiener's office for including me and the food truck operators in the conversation. i think he has done an exceptional job in trying to hear and listen to our concerns. if i can use the overhead projector. so when -- so the distance of 50' is not actually 50'. so when you think about, it's from the property line. it's not from the center of a restaurant. and so it's actually closer to 60' of a buffer zone. from our perspective, what that does and the map i'm going to show you here -- so the black is actually the available air area for use. all of the dots are existing restaurants and this by the way, as you can see is a
need citywide legislation, especially overbroad legislation to deal with an isolated what i would call an isolated community incident. and i think this legislation also, as supervisor olague said, is not good use of our time and i will be voting no on it as well. >> president chiu: is there further discussion? supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you arbitration colleagues, for your comments. i just want to make a few points. first of all -- and some of the points i've heard today are some that some of the opposite have raised as well. to suggest this is not important enough or worthy of our time i did a little research and we could go back and i could probably find some resolutions and ordinances from pretty much every member of this body, that would -- that may fall into that category, that are not the most but that actually matter in a lot of people's lives. and so if the new rule is that this board can only take up matters that are somehow monumental, while i really would be interested in that discussion, our agendas would be much lighter, and but that would be
you very much thank you colleagues for hearing this item today this legislation is a result of over i six months of work between my department and the police department and in order to better regulate junk dealers and after a number of severe public safety incidents involving metal feeds p g and e utility towers and pulling of towers and failing small boats to the strip yard, brick and construction site their home under going renovation a at the particular timing to steal bleachers from the parks and wiring additionally our police department conducts a series of sting operation and is uncovered some of our dealers accepting materials that have been pistollen and false documentation and as a result we took at the permit requirements for junk dealers and for clarification the definition does not include -- severely out of date and did not enable the police department to meted our public safety objectiving for example under the current permitting structure the permit never entires therefore the police department doesn't have an at some point to renew these and -- suspenses can be very l
about this legislation and feeling that it may make it harder for people to respond to real issues of c-e-q-a. i'm not sure about all the abuses that are being referenced. i don't know what those abuses are. my position, i'm a chair of a land use committee of neighborhood association, [speaker not understood] valley association which comes to castro and upper market. on my level there is some abuse of c-e-q-a. c-e-q-a is hardly even brought to bear on the kind of projects that we're looking at. * no abuse however, eureka valley has an enormous number of historic resources which have not been mapped and have not been surveyed except for the windshield survey which, as i read the legislation, it seems as though those historic resources are not official and would not be protected with some level of protection would be removed by this legislation. they wouldn't be defined as historic resource, something like that. it's very com merit indicated, though. * complicated so, i think ordinary people who don't have a background in the law, they just have to rely on you to, to look at the details
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 3,525 (some duplicates have been removed)